HESSE 

•

MURPHY 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP 

-------------- - ---------Attorneys at Law 

Brandon H. Moss 

bmoss@mhtl.com 

VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL 

AND EMAIL (9-A W A-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov) 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., S.W., Room 900E 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

January 3, 2017 

Re: Part 16 Complaint: Boston Executive Helicopters v. Town of Norwood, 

Massachusetts and Norwood Airport Commission; Docket No. 16-15-05 

Respondents' Response to Complainant's Pleadings and Motion to Strike 

November 29, 2016 Filing 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

The Respondents in the above-referenced matter, the Town ofNorwood, Massachusetts 

and the Norwood Airport Commission (collectively, "Respondents"), hereby respond to the 

November 29, 2016 and December 15, 2016 filings by the Complainant, Boston Executive 

Helicopters ("BEH"). For the reasons set forth below, the Respondents request that the Federal 

Aviation Administration ("FAA") strike BEH' s November 29, 2016 filing because it is untimely 

under 14 C.F.R. § 16.19 and is inconsistent with the procedures for pleadings under 14 C.F.R. § 

16.23. In addition, the Respondents request that the FAA determine that the Respondents have 

complied with the Grant Assurances, dismiss BEH' s Part 16 Complaint, and decline to take any 

further action. 

I. ARGUMENT 

A. The Respondents reguest that BEH's November 29, 2016 filing be stricken. 

As an initial matter, the Respondents respectfully request that the FAA strike BEH's 

November 29, 2016 filing. This November 29, 2016 filing, comprised of approximately onehundred fifty-two (152) pages in total, is inconsistent with the applicable procedures under 14 

C.F.R. Part 16 and is untimely. 

967263vl 

300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 410 Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 T 617.479.5000 1 F 617.479.6469 

Boston I Springfield I info@mhtl.com I www.mhtl.com 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP ---· ----·-----Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page2 

On its plain face, BEH's November 29, 2016 filing (on pages 5, 6 and 8 through 16)1 

attempts to address arguments raised by the Defendants in their Rebuttal - a pleading that the 

Respondents filed with the FAA on July 9, 2015, approximately sixteen (16) months beforehand. 

There is no procedure under 14 C.F.R. Part 16 allowing BEH to file a further reply to the 

Rebuttal. See 14 C.F.R. § 16.23. For that reason alone, BEH should not be allowed to have a 

second bite at the proverbial apple, by re-arguing the same issues that were previously addressed 

in BEH's Complaint, the Respondents' Answer, BEH's Reply, and the Respondents' Rebuttal. 

To allow BEH to further litigate such issues creates a risk of never-ending pleadings and filings 

in the pending Part 16 action. 

Nor has BEH provided any good cause for the unjustified delay in its attempt to relitigate previously discussed issues or its attempt to raise new issues. The issues that BEH 

attempts to discuss in on pages 2 through 4 of its November 29, 2016 filing- including the 

FlightLevel Norwood, LLC ("FlightLevel") leaseholds on Lots 5, 6 and 7 and the Verizon 

Communications ("Verizon") sublease- involved factual developments pre-dating the filing of 

BEH's Complaint on or about March 9, 2015. By contrast, the Supplemental Rebuttals filed by 

the Respondents related to factual developments occurring after the filing of the last pleading -

the Defendants' Rebuttal - so that the FAA would be fully informed of all issues and be in a 

position to make a decision on the current and complete record. 

As discussed below, BEH had actual and/or constructive knowledge ofFlightLevel's 

2014 request to extend leases for Lots 6 and 7, FlightLevel's request to extend a sublease for Lot 

5, and FlightLevel's request for a short-term lease of Lot 5- because BEH's President, 

Christopher Donovan ("Mr. Donovan"), and BEH's attorney were present at the April 9, 2014 

meeting at which these leasing matters were discussed. See Exhibit 147. 2 BEH could have, but 

failed to, proffer argument in its March 9, 2015 Complaint concerning Lots 5, 6 and 7 and Lots 

1 The Respondents previously discussed two (2) of the cases cited on pages 15 and 16 ofBEH's 

November 29, 2016 filing in their Answer (filed on May 8, 2015) and their Rebuttal (filed on 

July 9, 2015). Those cases are Jacquelin R. Ashton and Kent Ashton v. City of Concord, NC, 

FAA Docket No. 16-02-01 (Director's Determination, August 22, 2003; Final Agency Decision, 

February 27, 2004) and Flightline Aviation, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, FAA Docket No. 16-07-

05 (Director's Determination, March 7, 2008). These cases are consistent with the Respondents' 

clear concern with the litigation and financial risks resulting from BEH' s conduct, and serve as 

justification for the resulting actions taken by the Respondents to address such risks. 2 For purposes of consistency, the Respondents continue the sequence of exhibit numbering from 

their previously filings. Unless otherwise specified (i.e., "BEH Exhibit _"), all exhibits 

identified herein are the Respondents' exhibits. 

967263vl 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP ------------------Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 3 

A, B, C- because the factual basis for such allegations (which are contested) arose nearly one 

( 1) year beforehand. 

Moreover, the Verizon sublease- the so-called "Surplus Land"- was initially raised as 

an issue in BEH's Complaint and responded to (and disputed) by the Respondents in their May 

8, 2015 Answer. Coincidentally, one of the attorneys that BEH previously used in its dealings in 

late 2015 for a lease and commercial permit from the Norwood Airport Commission ("NAC") 

was the same attorney used by the sub-lessor for the Surplus Land, Annex Realty Trust, in its 

earlier negotiations with the Respondents for consent to the sublease of the Surplus Land. 

Therefore, BEH should not be permitted to re-litigate the Surplus Land indefinitely- particularly 

where there have been no new factual developments arising out of the Surplus Land. 

To the extent that BEH attempts to contest the Respondents' Motions for Leave to File 

First, Second, Third and Fourth Supplemental Rebuttals, the Respondents respectfully request 

that the FAA strike such arguments as untimely and waived. In that regard, 14 C.F.R. § 16.230) 

requires that any amendment or supplement to the pleadings made upon motion. In turn, 14 

C.F .R. § 16.19 requires that an answer to such a motion be filed within ten (1 0) days after the 

motion has been served. 

In this case, the Respondents filed Motions for Leave to File the Supplemental Rebuttals 

on the following dates: (1) June 13, 2016 (First Supplemental Rebuttal); (2) June 17, 2016 

(Second Supplemental Rebuttal); (3) September 2, 2016 (Third Supplemental Rebuttal); and (4) 

November 10, 2016 (Fourth Supplemental Rebuttal). BEH ignored the ten (10) day deadline to 

oppose these Motions for Leave to File the Supplemental Rebuttals, notwithstanding 14 C.F.R. § 

16.230). BEH did not respond to any of the foregoing Motions for Leave to File the 

Supplemental Rebuttals. In fact, since the June 8, 2015 filing ofits Reply, BEH had not made 

any other filings or submissions with the FAA until BEH's November 29,2016 filing. 

Therefore, the Respondents respectfully request that any attempt to contest those Supplemental 

Rebuttals should be deemed untimely and waived. 

B. The assertions in BEH's November 29, 2016 filing are factually incorrect. 

The November 29, 2016 filing is replete with speculation, conjecture and unsupported 

accusations - without supporting factual or documentary support. In large part, BEH attempts to 

assert its own perceptions and conclusions as factual occurrences, yet such perceptions and 

conclusions are faulty, based on mischaracterizations, and entirely incorrect. For example, BEH 

routinely uses the word "apparent," even though there is simply no basis to support BEH's 

arguments other than misplaced and unsupported speculation. Aside from the procedural defects 

967263vl 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP ----·· -·--·---··---··- Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 4 

-which are discussed above and constitute a basis for striking BEH's November 29, 2016 filing 

-the Respondents respectfully request that the FAA decline to credit the speculation, conjecture 

and unsupported accusations in BEH's November 29, 2016 filing. 

1. BEH misstates the lease negotiations between the NAC and 

FlightLevel. 

BEH's attempt to characterize lease negotiations between the NAC and FlightLevel as 

"secret" or improper is incorrect. Rather, BEH ignores the background of the leases of Lots 5, 6 

and 7 at Norwood Memorial Airport ("Airport") and therefore fails to account for the context of 

FlightLevel's requests to extend its leaseholds on those parcels. It is important to note that, to 

date, the NAC and FlightLevel have not executed: a written lease for Lot 5, a written extension 

of the leases for 6 and 7; or a written consent to extend the sublease of Lot 5 to 2047. 

By way of background, Lot 5 is part of the leasehold subject to the master Lease 

Agreement ("Master Lease Agreement") between the Town ofNorwood ("Town") and Boston 

Metropolitan Airport, Inc. ("BMA"), executed on or about December 13, 1967. This Master 

Lease Agreement had an initial twenty (20) year term, with three (3) separate options to renew, 

each exercisable by BMA. BMA has since exercised all of the options to renew, and accordingly 

BMA's leasehold will expire in 2047. See Exhibit 150. 

S&T Realty Trust ofNorwood ("S&T Realty Trust") is BMA's sublessee for Lot 5. 

S&T Realty Trust directly leases Lots 6 and 7 from the Town, acting through the NAC; Lots 6 

and 7 are not part of the Master Lease Agreement with BMA. Peter Eichleay ("Mr. Eichleay") 

serves as Trustee of S&T Realty Trust and President of FlightLevel. 

The proposed extensions ofthe leases of Lots 5, 6 and 7 originated from FlightLevel's 

January 22, 2014 request to the NAC, which discussed FlightLevel's upcoming capital 

investment projects at the Airport. See Exhibit 147 at Tab A. 3 Specifically, FlightLevel 

identified an approximate investment of $2,250,000 at the Airport for a CAP Ramp Rejuvenation 

and Hangar Complex Construction Project ("CAP Project"), conditional on financial approval 

(pending a sufficient leasehold amortization term). See id. This CAP Project included the 

conditional subscription of hangar tenants. See id. 

3 For purposes of consistency, the Respondents continue the sequence of exhibit numbering from 

their previous filings. 

967263vl 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP ................... - -Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 5 

Because of the sizeable investment encompassed by the CAP Project, along with the 

lengthy amortization period that it represented as being required for a return on the investment 

and positive cash flow, FlightLevel sought to lease Lots 5 (including extending its sublease), and 

Lots 6 and 7 through 2050, for an overall leasehold of thirty-five (35) years. See id. As part of 

this request, FlightLevel represented that the proposed overall lease term was "in our experience, 

customary for the size of investment that's being made." See id. 

FlightLevel identified other fixed-base operator ("FBO") locations where it had made 

similar investments and was "afforded terms similar to what we've requested here and by the 

same logic (i.e. length of term commensurate with investment size)." See id. FlightLevel 

identified the benefits for the extended overall lease term as including the securing of "long term 

dependable revenue for the Town," "additional business for the airport and FlightLevel," and 

"sufficient investment security for us [i.e., FlightLevel] and our financiers." See id. 

In its November 29, 2016 filing, BEH: alleges that FlightLevel "for years failed to follow 

the language in its leases"; characterizes Lot 5 as being "in disrepair and noted as deplorable on 

inspections from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation"; and accuses FlightLevel of 

trying to place cleanup responsibility on the NAC. Yet, BEH provides no evidentiary support for 

these accusations, which should be rejected because they are baseless, unsubstantiated and 

devoid of any supporting documentation. Cf. 14 C.F.R. § 16.23(b)(2), (3). To the contrary, as 

FlightLevel's January 22, 2014letter makes clear, FlightLevel has continued to invest in and 

improve the Airport. See Exhibit 147 at Tab A. BEH has also failed to distinguish FlightLevel 

from the conduct of prior FBO businesses operating at the Airport, which previously used the 

leaseholds of Lots 5, 6 and 7. 

On March 5, 2014, FlightLevel requested "a simple letter of intent from the [NAC] 

indicating the mutual desire to extend our leases such that we have the necessary term to 

amortize our upcoming airport investments (see my letter to commission dated 1122/14 for more 

details)." See id. at Tab B. The impetus for this requested letter of intent was to provide 

FlightLevel "the comfort we need to start spending the money immediately such that we get the 

project done according to the timeline we've identified with the understanding that it could take 

weeks or perhaps months to get the actual lease extensions completed." See id. FlightLevel 

raised a concern that waiting until the completion of leases could delay the CAP Project, while 

jeopardizing tenants' commitments and financing. See id. 

The open session and executive session minutes for the NAC's April 9, 2014 meeting are 

enclosed in Exhibit 148. Significantly, Mr. Donovan (BEH's President) and BEH's attorney 

were present at the April9, 2014 meeting and actively participated during that meeting. See id. 

967263vl 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP ---·--Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 6 

A copy of the April 9, 2014 posted meeting agenda is enclosed as Exhibit 149- this posted 

agenda expressly identified executive (closed) session as a topic. 

As a public body, the NAC is subject to the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, 

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Sections 18 to 25, which governs the procedures for 

conducting meetings of public bodies. Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 

21, a public body may deliberate certain topics in executive (closed) session. Notably, one of the 

purposes for executive session involves real estate (Purpose 6): "To consider the purchase, 

exchange, lease or value of real property if the chair declares that an open meeting may have a 

detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the public body." See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 

30A, § 21(a)(6) (emphasis added). Therefore, to the extent that the NAC discussed the lease of 

Lots 5, 6 and 7, it did so in accordance with an expressly authorized Purpose 6 under the 

Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. 

It is flatly incorrect for BEH to now suggest, over two-and-a-half (2 Y2) years later, that 

the lease discussions for Lots 5, 6 and 7 were secretive or improper. Given the posted meeting 

agenda, and Mr. Donovan's attendance and active participation during the meeting, it is 

axiomatic that Mr. Donovan - and BEH- knew that the NAC was entering executive session at 

the April 9, 2014 meeting. 

During the executive session of the April 9, 2014 meeting, the NAC discussed 

FlightLevel's requested lease extensions for Lots 5, 6 and 7. See Exhibit 148. In particular, the 

NAC voted to require FlightLevel to explain the investment for extending the lease of Lot 5 to 

2047, and subjected that extension to review by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

("MassDOT"). See id. Given FlightLevel's identified capital project on Lots 6 and 7, the NAC 

voted to extend the lease for those parcels to 2050, contingent on construction commencing no 

later than December 31, 2017. See id. 

In accordance with, and subsequent to the NAC's vote, on April15, 2014 Airport 

Manager Russ Maguire, A.A.E., ACE ("Airport Manager") provided FlightLevel with a letter of 

intent to negotiate an extension of the leases for Lots 5, 6 and 7 (as well as approving a shortterm lease extension of Lots A, B, C, which had been otherwise set to expire within 

approximately six (6) months). See Exhibit 147. By its express terms, and contrary to the 

assertion by BEH, the April15, 2014letter from the Airport Manager did not operate to 

conclusively extend the lease terms for Lots 5, 6 and 7-it only constituted a conditional letter of 

intent. 

967263vl 
IDQ MURPHY HESSE 

IIDJTOOMEY & LEHANE LLP ------·-------·----··-----·---·------ Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 7 

BEH's description of the role and actions of the Airport Manager is thus unsupported and 

nothing more than a gross mischaracterization. The Airport Manager was the recipient of 

FlightLevel's request for a letter of intent to negotiate extensions of Lots 5, 6 and 7, and the 

Airport Manager subsequently communicated the NAC's intentions to FlightLevel, after the 

NAC first discussed the extensions. 

In his April15, 2014letter, the Airport Manager noted that an extension of the sublease 

for Lot 5 required approval by the FAA and the MassDOT Aeronautics Division (successor to 

the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission), per the Master Lease Agreement between the 

Town and BMA. See id. Moreover, the Airport Manager stated that the NAC "is receptive to 

extending the Lots 6, 7 lease to 2050 conditional on Flight Level at least commencing 

construction of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) apron hangar complex no later than December 31, 

2017." See id. (emphasis added in part and in original in part). 

BEH has not explained how it obtained the "copy of the lease extension granted to Flight 

Level" that was included as BEH Exhibit 178 - a completely false and inaccurate allegation. 

Exhibit 178 is not a final signed document, was not prepared or approved by the Respondents or 

their legal counsel, and therefore the content thereof cannot be imputed to the Respondents. 

Additionally, BEH apparently suggests that BEH Exhibit 178 is an all-encompassing document 

pertaining to Lots 5, 6 and 7- but, from its face, is only limited to Lot 5, primarily between 

BMA and S&T Realty Trust. 

That said, at the present time, the Respondents have not executed any lease documents 

pertaining to Lots 5, 6 or 7. Nor has the FAA or MassDOT affirmatively precluded the 

Respondents from extending or entering into any leases with S&T Realty Trust - BEH Exhibit 

177 instead reflects the FAA's declination to review or take any position on the proposed 

extension of the sublease of Lot 5 given BEH's pending Part 16 complaint. To the extent that 

such lease documents are executed in the future, the NAC intends to include language required 

by the Corrective Action Plan in FAA Docket No. 16-07-03 ("Corrective Action Plan")- indeed, 

the draft document included in Exhibit 178 did not contain such language. Moreover, as 

discussed below, the NAC has required FlightLevel to provide justification ofFlightLevel's need 

to amortize its investment as a precondition to granting approval of extending FlightLevel's 

leaseholds on Lots 5, 6 and 7- consistent with FAA guidance. 

As noted in the Aprill5, 2014letter from the Airport Manager, the extension of 

leaseholds for Lots 5, 6 and 7 was dependent upon the occurrence of certain circumstances, 

including, in the case of Lots 6 and 7, construction for the CAP Project commencing by 

December 31, 2017. As it turns out, FlightLevel started construction of the CAP Project prior to 

967263vl 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP ·----.. - .... -.... ·-·----·--·-.. --.--.. - Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 8 

the December 31, 2017 deadline- as of the NAC's October 19, 2016 meeting, the erection crew 

was on-site and the building was expected to be completed within six (6) to eight (8) weeks from 

that time. See Exhibit 150. An additional update provided by FlightLevel at the NAC's 

November 16, 2016 meeting extended the completion date to January 2017. See Exhibit 153. 

At its October 19,2016 meeting, the NAC discussed the proposed extension to the 

leaseholds ofLots 5, 6 and 7 in open session, during the public portion ofthe October 19,2016 

meeting. See Exhibit 150. Mr. Donovan was present at that October 19, 2016 meeting, 

including during the open session discussion on Lots 5, 6 and 7. See id. Given Mr. Donovan's 

presence for this discussion, it is particularly concerning that BEH has lodged unsupported and 

incorrect accusations concerning the status ofFlightLevel's request to extend the leaseholds on 

Lots 5, 6 and 7- BEH knew or should have known that such accusations were incorrect when 

BEH made its subsequent November 29, 2016 filing. 

During the October 19, 2016 meeting, Mr. Eichleay provided a presentation to justify the 

necessity of the extension of the leases for Lots 6 and 7 through 2050, and for a lease of Lot 5 

through 2050 (after the BMA Master Lease Agreement expired). See id.; Exhibit 151. BEH's 

November 29, 2016 filing ignores the presentation made by Mr. Eichleay at the October 19, 2016 

public meeting attended by Mr. Donovan. 

By extending its leaseholds for Lots 5, 6 and 7, FlightLevel expected to secure funding 

required for completing the CAP Project and to plan for future projects. See Exhibit 151. 

FlightLevel's presentation noted that the total investment of the CAP Project was $2.5 million, 

with approximately $1.2 million of the investment on Lots 6 and 7, and the remainder of the 

investment on Lot 5. See id. Because of the total $2.5 million investment, FlightLevel 

represented that an extension through 2050 was required in order to amortize the value of the 

investment. See id. Additionally, during the presentation, FlightLevel identified plans to invest 

in a new hangar near the existing T-Hangar bays with successful tenant subscription. See id. 

In turn, the NAC made conditional votes to approve a short-term lease for Lot 5 and 

extend the lease terms for Lots 6 and 7. See Exhibit 150. These votes were contingent upon the 

following conditions: (1) FlightLevel must provide a personal guarantee or letter of credit; (2) 

FlightLevel must provide adequate spill insurance; and (3) FlightLevel must provide a plan that 

includes a fuel site plan stamped by a licensed engineer or surveyor. See id. Along with 

FlightLevel satisfying the aforementioned conditions, a written, fully executed lease amendment 

(for Lots 6 and 7) and lease agreement (for Lot 5, for the period of2047 to 2050), along with a 

written assent (for Lot 5 through 2047), will be required before the proposed extended leaseholds 

for Lots 5, 6 and 7 are effective. 

967263vl 
•

MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 9 

The FAA has specifically recognized that "fixed-base operators making capital 

investments are given longer term leases to amortize their investment." See Aviation Center, 

Inc. v. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, FAA Docket 16-05-01 (Director's Determination, 

December 16, 2005). Thus, in Aviation Center, the FAA recognized that a complainant, who 

proposed to make a capital investment, had "earned the right to a longer term lease." See id. 

Similarly, in Pacific Coast Flyers, Inc. v. County of San Diego, California, the FAA held that, 

"[w]hen necessary, fixed-term leases are granted for the minimum number of years adequate to 

allow a lessee to amortize, and receive a reasonable return on, the lessee's investment in 

leasehold improvements." FAA Docket No. 16-04-08 (Director's Determination, July 25, 2005) 

(holding that thirty (30) year lease term "not per se unreasonable" in light of investment). 

Moreover, Chapter 12 of FAA Order 5190.6B (September 2009) states that " [m]ost 

tenant ground leases of30 to 35 years are sufficient to retire a tenant's initial financing and 

provide a reasonable return for the tenant's development of major facilities." See FAA Order 

5190.6B § 12.3.b.(3). Here, the proposed leases for Lots 5, 6 and 7 are consistent with FAA 

requirements, because ofFlightLevel's demonstrated need to amortize its investment and obtain 

financing. To the extent that BEH suggests a deviation from the required lease provisions set 

forth in the Corrective Action Plan, such a suggestion is unfounded, as the final lease documents 

for Lots 5, 6 and 7 have not been executed and the NAC will act in accordance with the 

Corrective Action Plan and FAA guidance. 

2. BEH's arguments concerning the Verizon sublease - also known as 

the "Surplus Land" -are unfounded. 

On page 2 of its November 29, 2016 filing, BEH alleges that it "recently learned" about 

the sublease of Airport property to Verizon. (Emphasis added). This allegation is equally 

mystifying and incorrect- on pages 7, 8, 21 and 22 of its March 9, 2015 Complaint, BEH 

specifically challenges the sublease of the Surplus Land to Verizon for non-aviation use. It is 

inappropriate for BEH to suggest that this is a new issue or that it was only "recently learned" -

particularly where related arguments were made by BEH in its Complaint and disputed by the 

Respondents in their Answer in the above-referenced Part 16 proceeding. 

In the interests of efficiency, the Respondents refer to and incorporate herein their 

Answer, which addresses the Verizon sublease of the Surplus Land on pages 37 to 39 of that 

document. The Auto Storage Lease Agreement (BEH Exhibit 1804

) executed by the NAC and 

4 The handwriting and markings appearing on BEH' s exhibits were not made by the 

Respondents. 

967263vl 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP 

Attorneys at law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 10 

the Annex Realty Trust- from which the Verizon sublease derives- is dated July 1, 2007, prior 

to the Corrective Action Plan. Regardless, as noted on pages 37 to 39 of the Respondents' 

Answer, the Surplus Land is not suitable for aeronautical purposes, and the NAC previously 

engaged the FAA in 2010 about the Verizon sublease, given the non-aeronautical use involved. 

The NAC has ex~lored all options before determining that the Surplus Land is not suitable for 

aeronautical use. 

The NAC's consent to the Verizon sublease is consistent with the "Sublease/ Assignment" clause to the Auto Storage Lease Agreement, and does not reflect any intent 

or attempt to defy FAA requirements. To that end, this "Sub-lease/ Assignment" clause provided 

that approval was not to be unreasonably withheld in certain circumstances- including the 

Verizon sublease - and therefore the Auto Storage Lease Agreement was not renegotiated at the 

time that the Verizon sublease was proposed. BEH' s arguments on this point are sheer 

conjecture- couched in BEH's "apparent" perception - and devoid of any actual or credible 

factual support. Again, it is unfortunate the BEH has drawn its own conclusions concerning the 

Respondents' intent, without any support, and attempted to pose such faulty conclusions as facts, 

which they are not. 

In any event, contrary to BEH's assertion, to the extent that the NAC could be required to 

use the Surplus Land for aeronautical use in the future, the paragraph entitled "Lessee's Use of 

Space" in the existing Auto Storage Lease Agreement is consistent with the Corrective Action 

Plan. Specifically, this "Lessee's Use of Space" paragraph states: "In utilizing the Space, Lessee 

agrees to and shall comply with all applicable ordinances, resolutions, rules and regulations 

established by any federal, state or local government, to include those of the Lessor." See BEH 

Exhibit 180. While the Respondents respectfully submit that the Auto Storage Lease Agreement 

is compliant with applicable FAA requirements, this "Lessee's Use of Space" paragraph amounts 

to a subordination clause and provides the Respondents an avenue to address the lease and 

sublease for the Surplus Land should the FAA conclude otherwise. 

5 BEH suggests that a commercial permit is required for the Surplus Land. However, Verizon's 

use of the Surplus Land is not an aviation-related activity, and therefore does not meet the 

definition of"commercial activity" under Section III ofthe Norwood Airport Minimum 

Standards. See Exhibit 36. 

967263vl 
IDIIMURPHY HESSE 

iii!TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP ·······------------------·-Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 11 

3. BEH previously refused NAC's offer for a lease and delayed its 

responses to the NAC's lease offers. 

On pages 4 and 5 of its November 29, 2016 filing, BEH disputes that it refused the 

NAC's lease offer and it separately contests the NAC's prior lease offers. In the interests of 

efficiency, the NAC refers to its Answer (pages 24 to 33), Rebuttal (pages 6 to 18), Second 

Supplemental Rebuttal, and Fourth Supplemental Rebuttal, for a full and complete discussion of 

the prior lease offer that BEH rejected (at the NAC's April 9, 2014 meeting, which is also shown 

on Exhibit 148) and the NAC's subsequent conditional lease offers of increasingly larger parcels 

on the Airport. 

The lease offer that BEH rejected at the NAC's April9, 2014 meeting was an 83'x83' 

parcel, or approximately 6,889 square feet. Even though BEH rejected this lease offer, during its 

February 11, 2015 meeting, the NAC voted to offer Parcel A (approximately 11,786 square feet) 

to BEH, or nearly double the lease offer that BEH had previously rejected. See Exhibit 68. The 

NAC's June 17, 2016 offer of Parcels A and Bon the West Apron is more than double the 

February 11, 2015 offer (or approximately 23,572 square feet). See Exhibits 101, 146, 147. Yet, 

rather than comply with the conditions in these offers, BEH' s conduct has been nothing short of 

defiance, delay, confrontation and litigation. 

On page 4 of the November 29, 2016 filing, BEH also attempts tore-litigate the Part 13 

Complaint initiated by former NAC Member Oulton Hues, Jr. (''Mr. Hues"). Exhibit 96, which 

accompanied the Respondents' Answer, contains the NAC's March 6, 2015 response to the 

January 15, 2015letter from Mary T. Walsh ("Ms. Walsh") of the FAA's Airports Division for 

the New England Region. Since the NAC's March 6, 2015 response, the FAA has taken no 

further action in response to Mr. Hues' Part 13 Complaint.6 

The most recent offer made by the NAC occurred on June 17, 2016, encompassing an 

FBO commercial permit and lease, and this offer was modified through the elimination of a 

condition at the NAC's October 19,2016 meeting. See Exhibit 150. BEH's objection to this 

lease offer- given BEH' s reference to a 1977 license (BEH Exhibit 191)- is entirely unfounded, 

because the NAC offer was for both Parcels A and Bon the West Apron of the Airport. There is 

no support for BEH's supposition that the NAC's lease offer for the West Apron was influenced 

or restricted by the 1977 license, nor is there is any support for BEH' s suggestion that the NAC 

6 BEH claims that FlightLevel controls approximately 561,764 square feet of space at the 

Airport. However, the March 15, 2015 response to Ms. Walsh identified 536,130 square feet as 

being leased to FlightLevel. See Exhibit 96 at 4. 

967263vl 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP 

------·-----·---- ··········----··--· Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 12 

has acted improperly in its disclosures to the FAA. This is yet another example of BEH making 

accusations without support in fact or reality. 

It should be noted that, rather than make either or both of Parcels A and B on the West 

Apron available to the public through a competitive bidding process, in an effort to encourage 

competition, the NAC's offer for Parcels A and Bon the West Apron was made directly to BEH. 

This lease offer was not made subject to the 1977 license and BEH's argument to the contrary is 

both entirely unfounded and another example ofBEH's unwillingness to work with the 

Respondents. BEH also has not explained how FlightLevel is successor-in-interest to Donald J. 

Moore, Jr., to whom the letter identifying a license was addressed, or how it apparently 

concludes that the license is currently effective. See BEH Exhibit 191. 

Only on July 8, 2016- after eleven (11) of the twelve (12) claims in the pending federal 

lawsuit between BEH and the Respondents were dismissed- did BEH, through its attorney, 

respond to the NAC's June 17, 2016 offer, in the form of questions (rather than accepting the 

offer). The NAC did not receive the July 8, 2016 until after the agenda for its July 13, 2016 

meeting had already been posted. The NAC did not meet in August 2016 because of summer 

schedules. Further, the NAC's Vice Chairman, who has actively participated at NAC meetings 

concerning BEH's lease and permitting issues, was absent from the NAC's September 14, 2016 

meeting. Accordingly, the October 19, 2016 meeting was the earliest that the July 8, 2016letter 

from BEH' s attorney could have been discussed. 

4. BEH's arguments concerning BEH's business plan and fin ancial 

information are incorrect and moot. 

BEH devotes a substantial part of its November 29, 2016 filing to discussing the third 

party independent review by Aviation Management Consulting Group ("AMCG"). What BEH 

fails to account for in its discussion are the extensive delays created because ofBEH's refusal to 

provide the NAC with a proper business plan and financial operations - including, but not 

limited to, the purported Confidentiality Agreement that BEH insisted upon, which violated 

Federal and Massachusetts Law. These issues are discussed on pages 25 through 30 of the 

Answer and pages 8 through 16 of the Rebuttal - another example of BEH attempting to relitigate issues that were addressed previously by the parties. BEH claims that other airport 

businesses were not required to provide information, yet unreasonably ignores the financial 

information previously required for prospective FBOs at the Airport. See Answer at 30-31; 

Exhibits 69-73. 

967263vl 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP --· Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 13 

In any event, AMCG completed its review during the fall of2015 and a review ofBEH's 

business plan and financials is no longer outstanding. The June 17, 2016 offer by the NAC, as 

originally made and as modified by the NAC's October 19, 2016 vote, did not include any 

requirements concerning BEH's business plan and financials, given AMCG's review. 

C. BEH's assertions pertaining to the June 17. 2016 offer. as modified, are meritless. 

On page 6 of its November 29, 2016 filing, BEH claims that the requested line of 

credit/personal guaranty, spill insurance, and fueling plans are new issues that were not requested 

previously. This argument defies logic, and the actual dealings between the parties, as discussed 

in the Respondents' Answer and Rebuttal. Equally meritless is BEH's December 15, 2016 

filing, which contains a copy of a December 12, 2016letter to the NAC - sent by BEH nearly 

two (2) months after the NAC addressed the conditions to the June 17, 2016 offer. It also should 

be noted that FlightLevel, in its request to extend the leaseholds for Lots 5, 6 and 7, is being 

subject to the same conditions. See Exhibit 150. 

Contrary to BEH's assertions, the Respondents have not imposed changing requirements 

upon BEH - instead, BEH has engaged in a pattern of delays and defiance in satisfying 

conditions for an FBO permit and lease. This is reflected in the delays and refusals by BEH in 

providing financial information to the NAC, before an alternative: an independent third party 

reviewer, who evaluated BEH' s financial information based on documents that BEH submitted 

to him and which BEH would not provide to the NAC. Moreover, this is also reflected in the 

outstanding guaranty (replaced by a letter of credit), proof of spill coverage, and fueling plan, 

which still have not been resolved even though these items were required in the February 11 , 

2015 lease offer and notwithstanding follow-up efforts to address these items since then. 

The NAC's February 11 , 2015 lease offer was expressly contingent upon BEH providing, 

inter alia, a personal guaranty and proof of insurance; the draft lease accompanying the lease 

offer similarly included an insurance requirement. See Exhibit 68; Answer at 28-29. As noted 

on pages 28, 29,31 of its Answer and 14-15 of its Rebuttal, the NAC is within its rights as an 

airport sponsor by imposing these conditions to protect itself, Airport users, and the general 

public from financial, litigation, environmental and safety risks. Subsequent discussions between 

the parties' attorneys involved whether BEH would provide a guaranty - BEH at first refusing to 

provide a personal guaranty, then asserting that there were no guarantors for its obligations and 

that it could not provide a guaranty. See Rebuttal at 14-15. 

Via email dated August 24, 2015, BEH's attorney unilaterally offered a purported letter 

of credit lieu of a personal guaranty. See Exhibit 152. Thus, it was BEH- not the NAC -who 

967263v l 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP ---··---···---····-······· ... ··-·--·--·-·--------··--···· Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 14 

first proposed a letter of credit as security for its obligations, and only after dragging out the 

NAC's efforts to obtain security for BEH's obligations and to minimize risk and exposure to the 

Respondents and the general public. The NAC did not accept BEH's purported letter of credit 

because of its concerns with the validity of the letter of credit, including whether it was a valid 

document from Bank of America (the financial institution identified on the document) or 

whether it was a document Bank of America would even approve. See Exhibit 152. 

It is therefore unreasonable for BEH to attempt to distance itself from providing a letter 

of credit, given that the concept of a letter of credit originated from BEH. Further, the letter of 

credit is a simple calculation, yet BEH still has not met the requirement for providing a suitable 

letter of credit to the NAC. In any event, because ofBEH's longstanding refusal to provide a 

guaranty, in an attempt to resolve this point of dispute, the NAC's June 17, 2016 offer was an 

accommodation of BEH' s position. 

BEH has wavered in the reasons for why it would not provide evidence of spill coverage 

- BEH's changing positions are described on page 17 of the Respondents' Rebuttal. Suffice it to 

say that BEH has never provided evidence of spill coverage, even though FlightLevel, the 

incumbent FBO, has maintained such coverage. Because ofBEH's proposed fueling operations, 

and BEH's status as a new entrant as an FBO, the Respondents' requirement for BEH to 

maintain spill coverage is reasonable. The Respondents should not be expected to assume any 

financial or other risks from BEH proposing to maintain less spill coverage than FlightLevel -

particularly given BEH's lack of experience as an FBO as compared to the experience of 

FlightLevel as an incumbent FBO. 

Because BEH proposes to store and sell fuel to the public, the NAC is within its rights for 

requiring BEH to maintain spill coverage. BEH is only being requested to provide spill coverage 

commensurate with the spill coverage maintained by FlightLevel - which is equal footing. 

There is no reason why BEH cannot obtain spill coverage prior to receipt of an FBO permitotherwise, with an FBO permit in hand, there is a risk that BEH may not have spill coverage in 

place at the time it commences storage and sale of fuel to the public. 

Turning to BEH' s fueling plan, it was the NAC, not BEH, who first identified BEH' s 

2013 fueling plan as being outdated circa June 23, 2015. By that point, BEH had actual or 

constructive knowledge, months prior, that its prior fueling plan was rendered moot because of 

the injunction issued in the pending litigation between BEH and FlightLevel on March 6, 2015. 

See Rebuttal at 17 -18; Exhibit 131. 

967263vl 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP --··· Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 15 

On June 23, 2015, the NAC, through its attorney, requested that BEH provide a revised, 

scaled fueling plan because of this injunction. See Rebuttal at 17 -18; Exhibit 131. That same 

day, BEH's attorney represented that "BEH's fueling plan has been revised in light of events"; 

however, and notwithstanding requests from the NAC, through its attorney, BEH did not provide 

a revised fueling plan until December 12, 2016 - even though this issue was raised 

approximately one-and-a-half (1 Yl) years beforehand. See Rebuttal at 17-18; Exhibit 131. 

Even then, the purported fueling plan accompanying BEH's December 12, 2016letter is 

deficient. As a starting point, this purported fueling plan is not stamped by a professional 

engineer. Yet, it was a requirement ofthe NAC's June 17,2016 offer that BEH provide a 

fueling plan prepared by a professional engineer - the same requirement imposed on FlightLevel 

as well. See Second Supplemental Rebuttal; Exhibit 150. Absent preparation by a professional 

engineer, the purported fueling plan is unreliable, a concern given the financial, safety and 

environmental risks arising out of fuel storage and sales. 

Also, the purported fueling plan is not to scale, despite BEH's representation to the 

contrary. The 57.5' distance on the purported fueling plan appears to be half the length ofthe 

67' distance delineated, and the 67' distance is close to being the same length as the 125' 

distance. Without proper scaling, the depictions on the purported fueling plan are meaningless 

and do not address setback and safety concerns. Additionally, many items are missing from the 

purported fueling plan; for example, the purported fueling plan does not include property lines, 

which are very important for ensuring that BEH is not encroaching upon abutting properties 

outside of its leasehold and for confirming that the representations on the purported fueling plan 

are more than illusory. 

BEH's objection to the size ofthe leasehold in the NAC's June 17,2016 offer is without 

merit. The NAC's June 17, 2016 offer- Parcels A and Bon the West Apron of the Airport, 

representing approximately 23,572 square feet- is nearly four times the lease area that the NAC 

originally offered in 2014, and nearly double the lease area that the NAC offered on February 11, 

2015 (which was Parcel A on the West Apron). 

While the NAC offered Parcel A in 2015, the NAC left it open for BEH to submit a 

proposal for Parcel B when a request for proposals was issued, to effectively double BEH' s 

space on the Airport. Ultimately, by making the June 17, 2016 offer, the NAC decided against a 

request for proposals for Parcel B, and instead directly offered Parcels A and B to BEH without a 

competitive procurement open to the public, to assist BEH in realizing its intentions to operate an 

FBO. Through its offers, the NAC has continued to increase the amount of lease space offered 

to BEH even though BEH has not demonstrated an actual need to increase the size of the 

967263vl 
•

MURPHY HESS E 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP -----·····----·········------ Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 16 

proposed leasehold. Nor has BEH simply accepted any of the lease offers - rather, BEH has 

continued to challenge the NAC and acted in a dilatory manner. 

BEH's apparent refusal to accept Parcels A and Bon the West Apron is in conflict with 

BEH's prior conduct. To that end, in seeking third party consultant review of its business plan 

and financial records in 2015, BEH sought to have the consultant consider "the entire West 

Ramp," even though, at the time, the NAC offered only Parcel A to BEH. See Exhibits 124 and 

125. This was reflected in the edits that BEH's attorney made to the proposed engagement letter 

for the third party consultant. Now, apparently (based on BEH's November 29, 2016 and 

December 15, 2016 filings), the lease offer for Parcels A and B is not enough for BEH. 

BEH's request for a larger leasehold than Parcels A and Bon the West Apron is 

inconsistent with its requested parity with FlightLevel. FlightLevel's transient area is 

approximately 25,000 square feet. By comparison, Parcels A and Bon the West Apron are close 

in size (approximately 23,572 square feet) and sufficient to accommodate and fuel multiple 

Cessna Citation Sovereign jets, the largest jets that the Airport can handle. See Second 

Supplemental Rebuttal at 2. The proposed BEH leasehold measures 284' x 83 ', which can easily 

accommodate three (3) Cessna Citation Sovereign jets - given that the wingspan of those jets is 

72'4", leaving plenty of room between the jets and for maneuvering. 

If BEH requires additional space after it commences operations as an FBO, it can pursue 

the DC-3 Apron when the lease on that parcel expires in the short-term future, in 2018. BEH 

previously could have - but chose not to- submit a proposal in 2013 when the NAC issued a 

request for proposals for the DC-3 Apron. See Answer at 36. Nonetheless, the DC-3 Apron will 

be available for procurement when the current five (5) year lease expires. 

At its October 19, 2016 meeting, the NAC modified the June 17, 2016 offer by 

eliminating a requirement that the pending litigation be resolved. The removal of this condition 

was to foster a resolution with BEH - and not with any mal-intent, as BEH suggests. By 

removing this condition, the Respondents remained exposed to litigation and financial risk, 

notwithstanding FAA recognition that an airport sponsor can take actions to guard against such 

risk. See Jacquelin R. Ashton & Kent J. Ashton v. City of Concord, N.C., FAA Docket No. 16-

02-01 (Director's Determination, August 22, 2003); FlightLine Aviation, Inc. v. City of 

Shreveport through Shreveport Airport Authority, FAA Docket. No. 16-07-05 (Director's 

Determination, March 7, 2008); Glyn Johnson d/b/a Zoo City Skydivers v. Yazoo County & 

Yazoo County Port Commission, FAA Docket No. 16-04-06 (Director's Determination, 

February 9, 2006). 

967263vl 
IDI]MURPHY HESSE 

IIIJTOOMEY & LEHANE LLP 

- - -·---- ·---Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 17 

D. The Respondents have attempted to work with BEH to establish a second FBO at 

the Airport. 

BEH' s claim that the Respondents are trying to foster a monopoly by FlightLevel could 

not be any further from actuality. Indeed, the United States District Court (Steams, J.) dismissed 

BEH's antitrust claims against the Respondents ("2015 BEH Lawsuit"). See Exhibit 145. In any 

event, while the NAC never issued a request for proposals for a second FBO, the NAC has 

continued to make offers to BEH to accommodate its stated intention to operate an FBO, while at 

the same time insisting upon conditions to safeguard the Respondents, Airport users, and the 

general public against litigation, financial, environmental and safety risks and concerns. Again, 

BEH's characterizations of the alleged conduct of individual NAC Members and the Airport 

Manager7 are unsupported and incorrect, and contradicted by the ongoing efforts by the NAC to 

make offers to FlightLevel for an FBO permit and lease. 

BEH refers to a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for Massachusetts in 

October 2016, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Town ofNorwood et al. 

("20 16 Lawsuit"). See BEH Exhibit 206. The 2016 Lawsuit is an insurance coverage dispute, 

resulting from the 2015 BEH Lawsuit, and whether there is an obligation for the Respondents' 

insurer, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA ("National Union"), to defend, pay 

defense costs, or indemnify the Respondents from any claims, liabilities, causes of action, or 

damages which are the subject of the 2015 BEH Lawsuit. The Respondents have no control over 

the decision by the Plaintiff in that case, to include BEH as a party defendant. 

This 2016 Lawsuit does not address the conduct of the Respondents in connection with 

BEH's FBO permit and lease requests. If anything, the 2016 Lawsuit demonstrates the untoward 

litigation and financial risk placed upon the Respondents arising out of BEH' s conduct - the type 

of considerations that the FAA has allowed an airport sponsor to consider in its dealings with an 

airport business. See Jacquelin R. Ashton & Kent J. Ashton v. City of Concord, N.C., FAA 

Docket No. 16-02-01 (Director's Determination, August 22, 2003); FlightLine Aviation, Inc. v. 

City of Shreveport through Shreveport Airport Authority, FAA Docket. No. 16-07-05 (Director's 

Determination, March 7, 2008); Glyn Johnson d/b/a Zoo City Skydivers v. Yazoo County & 

Yazoo County Port Commission, FAA Docket No. 16-04-06 (Director's Determination, 

7 BEH's suggestion of improper, "secret" meetings is simply incorrect. For example, neither the 

NAC nor the Airport Manager sanctioned the installation of jersey barriers near the Lot F-Lot G 

boundary; instead, this was a private dispute by and between BEH and FlightLevel, which is 

currently being litigated in Norfolk Superior Court. 

967263vl 
•

MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP --·-·· Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 18 

February 9, 2006). The Respondents are presently defending the 2016 Lawsuit, which is linked 

to and resulting from the 2015 BEH Lawsuit filed by BEH. 

II. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated herein, and in their prior filings, the Respondents respectfully 

request that the FAA: (1) strike BEH's November 29,2016 filing; (2) dismiss BEH's abovereferenced Part 16 Complaint; (3) decline to investigate BEH's above-referenced Part 16 

Complaint; (4) determine that the Respondents have complied with the FAA's Grant Assurances; 

and (5) take no further action in the above-referenced matter. Please let me know ifl can 

provide any additional information in the FAA's review of the above-referenced Part 16 

Complaint. 

Thank you for your courtesy in this matter. 

Very truly yours, 

Brandon -/t.J~ H. Moss 

967263vl 
MURPHY HESSE 

TOOMEY & LEHANE LLP ····-········-·---··-----···---··---·------·-·--·---··----·-··· Attorneys at Law 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Federal Aviation Administration 

January 3, 2017 

Page 19 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Brandon H. Moss, counsel to the Respondents, Town ofNorwood, Massachusetts and 

Norwood Airport Commission in Boston Executive Helicopters. LLC v. Town ofNorwood, 

Massachusetts and Norwood Airport Commission, FAA Docket No. 16-15-05, hereby certify 

that on this 3rd day of January 2017, a copy of the foregoing document was served via overnight 

mail and email as follows: 

Complainant, Boston Executive Helicopters, LLC (one copy): 

Timothy I. McCulloch, Esquire 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 

2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 750 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

TMcCulloch@hinshawlaw.com 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket (original and three (3) copies): 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Docket Clerk AGC-600 

Room 900-E 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

9-A W A-AGC-Part-16@faa.gov 

Brandon ~ H. Moss 

967263vl 
EXHIBIT 147 
Norwood Afemorial Airport 

"QFf)_~_t;_ADJl!!f_~::_ 

R u·~-" l\L:prire. A. A .E ... \( L. Au-port \/lana~er 

; 25 .'\c:cc,;., R<1.aJ 

'\L'1-f\':(10d. iV1 ·\ 021._162 

April!5, 201-f 

Flight Level Avimion 

Attn: Peter Eichlea1 President 

1 25 Access Road 

:\Of\\OOd, 'tvfA 02062 

RE: Letter of Intent: Lots A.B.C; LotS; Lots 6,7; 

Dear Peter 

ln n. hdd April the ?<-~onA.>ood Airport 

22. 2014 letter attad'led) and ?vlarch 5 ... 2014 (cOp) 

board a letter of i:1tern Io negotiaL: ~-m ext-:nsion of the: fOHov.-ing leas~s: 

L ' A,B,C 

Lot 5 

Lens 6, 7 

Lots AJ:i,C 

The !'-J.AC '"·oted to offer l-ll,g}u Lel't_) an adJLti.__-,_nai 

iea.se e·.l{pires on Octobt.~r 3 i_. 2014 

!cotS 

! 25 .-~u:cc;;;~ R;1:_Hl 

\iuPJ>· .. 1ud. :vl.--\ 020(!2 

r t.tiscussed your January 

rectuescin~ from the 

A.B. C, The current 

As you kn.:_l'\-L 5 is ~i.ted on the 80-)'ear lease bd\~een the To\Jr.:'\J ot "'"'"'"',nrl and Bos'ton 

Lvvel. Per the Towr. 

kase 

"·The subleases of said or pon-lons shall be r-e\-i~\ v·ed prior to their 

e·,;.,:cc:ution b:y tht:: \lassachuset't:':i /\eronautic~:; Cummission and the Federal 

/\. viation Administration. or the successor agencies, and apprcrv~d. in vvriting, by 

the \Jonvood Airport Commission.,,·-

tbe 
Therefore. while the \lAC is receptive to approving a sub-lease extension of Lot 5 to the year 

204 7. this approval must be preceded by a satisfactory review of this sub-lease extension by the 

Federal Aviation Administration and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

(Aeronautics Division). per conditions set forth in the prime lease between the Town of 

1\ orwood and B lvL4, Inc. 

Lots 6,7 

The NAC is receptive to extending the Lots 6. 7 lease to 2050 conditional on Flight Level at least 

commencing construction of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) apron hangar complex no later than 

December 31,2017. 

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

~~ ry}/~--<" Russ Maguire, Mana#'r 

Norwood Memmial Airport 

CC: Nonvood Airport Commission, Norwood Town Counsel 

Attachments: 

Tab A 

TabB 

TabC 

January 22. 2014 letter from Flight Level to the Norwood Airport Commission 

(amortization plan not included) 

3/5/14 e-mail tromP. Eichleay, of Flight Level, toR. Maguire 

1967 lease, To>~~n ofNorwood/BJH4. Inc. 
TABA 
F 

A V I 

Norwood Airpi1r\. Co-m1nission 

cc: tvir. Russ A.irport ~1anager 

125 Access .Road 

Norwood, llrl-\ 02062 

Dear ~ir. Chairman and NAC M.ember;r 

PHONE 78i 769 3680 

FAX. 781 76S 7180 

www f!lghd&'ls-lavL~tlan com 

As yt)U Norwood t_s planning some ambitious and exdting capital 

investrnem: projects at OViD. VlhHe om· irnmet.iiat;! and mot.ri pres.s:ing focus is surrounding, the 

CitP Ramp and Hangar Complex Construction Pve ptt-.:r'Vided below a 

Matc..i,x which hig)ilights of our major plans !O<~king over a 5-y<:ar time h<?JrtZ<>n; 

T~<rm!t'~ ~i10'1\lt\Qn,. 

-

-~ng;.t Hot.:n: 

mi~~~rsl;tv~',l-~g:i~-' 

i~ Rep.w.i;:/R«.o:r<~m.tr.t, 

R.tftffimi~'!ln,g: <:rf Miiin.tt.mam::e 

I'I&JP Moor, Y2K Haonpr l'/oo{ 

IW)p<;~~f\·1::, \t;arlot<$ C,-;;t,11; ~iii 

(A? Ramp R:tOjt)lf'J!"rlo<itk;n ;_m;j 

l.ROO} >qft Mvlti· ~~it H;m~-­

Q:.;mpfex G:Wtn.r<tl:ftm 

':'Z'K i'W.!f\gil"rC:nens~on Prl)te!.:r ;o 

:;o66 ;;p;p-roxim~~aly Hl))lJ:;;..11t :md 

tflm!J:Se No~ Qoor;'1eiailt 

l-3, ())::1 ~qft. ilc:t H<Hlp; 

Cm1trur.tio,, r-nay !J#m,;'fflt!,~occn ____ , 

CoodltiwraA· flnanci~AWttwed 

(P*IldlT"<g.S-.rffi~t\4~ 

Am:ord:X2tioo rennl-, ~~ 

TeMiltl:'~~$uh=I~· 

Needlres; to say, we hope this demonstrates our long-term commitmenl tl? the airp;;rt IIDd to 

r,o;rltitmiJog ourselves fl?r capturing IIDd llrtracting future growth in the General and Business 

Aviation markets~ to t:~e benefit. of us aH. 

Alorg those we're pleased to report that we·1

ve already subscribed deals 'H'fthmrsltiple new 

turbine tena.--rts the mulit-u.rtlt CAP l-Iangar which have a.rmngements for maintenance an.d 

fllel business bundled into them as well It is our goal, with your help, to break gmood on the 

CA ..t' project trJs Spring and open the: door;~ fur occupancy this FalL 

125 ,A.ccess Road 

N c:: w 0 iJ d M P. o 2 o e 2 

·,•, ' ' 'd I e 3 a ' -at: .., r C.-., 
ln Eght of ilie sizeable investment this pmject encompasses, in addition to th!,'; lengthy 

amonizmion that's for a return on the lil'-lestment and po5itive cm.h.llo-., .. v~ we are 

respectfuJly requesting extensions of our existlng Southside Leases out to 2050 fOr J5 years total 

term from the project completion date, The leaseholds Lnciu.ded L1 this category· are the 

ibliowing: 

Lo·t 5 (EJvfA)~ expires 2026 (approx. 12 yeiiTS re.maining) 

; Lots 6 ru1d 7, 12 years remaining) 

3. Lets A... C 2014 (appro:~, 9 montt:ts remaining) 

to V/Ork vvitb. us on an 

extension to the e:w.:tent under the: To.,.vn··B~v1A Te better illustrate th,e need 

for the requested term. r~le- attached the business phn wltich has guiderl this investrnent decision 

internally and cash per the !enns \ve·v~ been able to negotiate 

with our fi~na.'1eiers attached} 

For what if's I'd also ti.ke to humbly vfJbJ:r:tteer that such a le;;1Se term Ls·j in our experience. 

cus-tomary for r.be size of lnves'tment that j s being made. At ou:r 0t_~er FBO locations, wb.e>re 

l},'·e've made similar we w~re aft\ .. 1-rdect term·& similar to what w~·i~ requesting her~ 

and by the :S&'11.e: leng1:h of term commenstimte ~.-vi-ill. investment I would be more 

tt1.an happy to share· those leases ~Nith tl1J: if they- \it'·ouJd like to l:tave a lo.ok for the 

sake- of comparis.~.:1>i:l. 

the tmvn and FhghtLevei il"J Li::tat it 

1. SeciJICS· term dependable revenue tOr the Tovvn 

Secures addi.twtml busines-s th~ airport and FLightLevd 

3. s~zcu.res sufficient inve.stment securit:v fOr u..;:; and our f1nan.ciers. 

As aH ha•.e a11Y question~ comments or concerns and we 

Iook to with you moving fOr~-va.n:L \"f./ e vvill accorru:nodate r,vhatsever date and 

tlli1.·1? works for the NAC to meet on tt.Gs. 

Sincerel~y 

j/}/ ,#'./-. ---------:;:, 

/ 77~~j<for;~;:{~--r;:-- -.. / / 

Peter EJChleay 

PligMLavel Aviation - Presrctect 

125 Access Read 

Nor.vood. MA 02002 

w- 781 769 8680 ext. i 28 

r::- peter@fllght!evefaviatlo-n com 

F· 781 7619,7180 
TABS 
Lmbra Page t of l 

letter of Intent 

From :Peter Eich!eay <pe!chleay@gmall.com> 

Subject : Request for Letter of Intent for Lease 

Extensions 

Wed, i'vlar051 1411:50 

To : Russ Magu!re1 A.AE, 

< rmagutre@norv;oodma. gov> 

Cc : r1lke Delaria 

<mdelar!a@f!!ghtievelaviation.com> 

Dear Russ, 

Good to taik 1

/esten:lay,. As we discussed, if!~'!.~~ue~ng a simple i!".tter oF 

intent the airport commission indicating the mutual desire to extend our 

Le~;;e~}uch tb<Jf;,y§Ji.<Jv<; th? .i1~1::e;;~·& J~r.m to. <im"Qfti!!? :Qur ]!fcQ.rfilfl!:f alriJQfl 

i nvestme,11ts. (see !TIY i?tte!JQ..<:ornr.r. issi CJ.tl (jate<J !{2:W1lor r.f.Q.@ (!etaH!§.b. 

liJgJr:l:l?b!r:lc!rot:Je,tt:er o.ftn!§nt l~!Qf!i'!§JlSJb?c()fi!f.IJ.Ii:l"'.?...:.n.<=ecj.!o stai!.SJ2§11difig tJ1~rf10J:l§y)mllle.Qt;ate.tt su.c:b th9t vye_ g<:tthe proje(;t c!ont=. acc:or:sJin,g to.tt.e tirr,elhle we've identifledwith the understanding that itcouid take weeks orperhapsmonths 

to aduafTeiilse e;~ensions c.oiilR'tete<L 'ivaitlrig~until tEe leases-are done;. . 

would undoubtedly delay the project and, in doing SOr jeopardize our 

tenants' commitments as well as our financing for project which obviously 

wouldn't be good anyone, you and the commission are amenable to this, 

be happy to draft such a tetter for your and the NAC's review, Please rne know 

at your earliest convenience, 

Thanks and ali the best, 

Peter 

------- ----·-
L TABC 
LEASE AGREEME.NT 

This Agreement is entered into between ttH1 TOW!'I OF 

NOR'NOOD, d municipcil •:orporation duly organizeU under the laws 

of the Commonwealth of M,Jssachusetts, hereinafter <:olled "the 

Lessor," and BOSTON METROPOLITAN AIRPORT, IN:,, the corpor,;tion 

duly organized under tne laws of trB Commonwe-.!ltn of MJsswcn,.;setts, 

hereinafter called ''the Lessee''. 

WHEREAS th~ Lessor ie the law£ul ownar of d certoin 

parcel of land shown dS Pdrcel 2 on the Exhibit ''An property plan 

dttdched to a Gra.:it Agreement relat-ing to the development of the 

1~orwood Memorial Airport, Norwood, Massachusetts, under FAAF 

?reject Number 9~11)-019-C803, said P<~rcel 2 being dlso shown as 

\"'"reel 1 on i) plan entitled roplan of LC~nd in Norwood, M .... ss.," 

dJted February 23, 1963, w. R. Ryan 1 Ci~i~.' Engineer, recorded in . _1.1. 

Norfolk Registry District of the LJnd court together with the deec 

to the Town of Norwood of Sdid parcel! and 

WHEREAS the <ifD.HISdid agreement between the UniteG 

States of p..mericd and the Town of Norwood obligates the To·;m to 

jCquirs !did parcel, all as more specifically &et forth in 

Special condition No. 17 of the Agreement' and 

WHEREt\S the Lessor is not able to dCquire Pdrcel 2 by 

purchase for fair v,;iue1 and 

WHEREAS the Lessee is willing to transfer title to the 

Lessoz of Sd.id pa:-:;al 2 1 subjtct, however, to the lease back of 

tht said Parcel for a sufficient period of time $0 that the fair 

. value of· the property may be realized through the lease arrdngeii i! ments i and 

~rlEREAS the foregoing method of acquiaition is t~e only 

!i ·j procedurt whereYndt.r the Lessor can comply with its oblig.:.tions 

li 

.

1 to the United States under Sdid Special Condition 17; 

NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutu.aUy understood anU ,;;greed 

that t~e LQssor leases Pdrcel L Ja shown on the aforementioned 

Exhibtt ''A" property plan back to thQ L&sse& for d period of 
twenty yedr petioae by tfle givi~9 of notice in wrlttng to tne 

Town of ~orwood of its exercise of !cild option ctt le~et on~ hundr8d 

eighty Jays prio; to the eKplrJticn of dny sucll period. 

canrJitic( S< 

(a) The Lessee m~y suble~se Sdid parcel or portio~~ 

:hertof for airport purpos~s~ aeronautlc~lly orienteJ busln&s!e!, 

(bJ Tne aubltQsas of 5aid parcsl or portions thereof 

sl1all bt revtewed prior to their BKICUt!on by the Maas~chusetts 

(dJ !n t4Ch tnstdnce, wh&t0 th• approval of tne ~o;~ood 

sh~ll be determined each year by tht NOr~ood aoard of Assessor•, 

and 

(" 

'r: J The tesse~ agrees to pay the afcresJid ran: e~ch 

-2 .. 
(g) The L~&sor agrees that present and f~ture buildings: 

and structures shall remain the property of the Lessee, or its 

assigns, but that an occupancy charge shdll be pJid to the Town 

of Norwood annually, to be determined ~nd paid as provideJ in 

'i sections (a) and (f) abovet and 

(h) A fdilure by the Lessee to pay the sumo called for 

by pdragraph (e) or {f) ~bove in the event of ~ dispute JS to the 

l

l 

:] amount due, shall not constitute a breach by the Lessee of the 

provisions of this Agreement. In the evef'Jt of such a dispute, 

the dispute shall be resolved by arbitration pursuant to the rules 

of the Americdn Arbitration Association and the provisions of the 

1 laws of the Common~ealth of Massachusetts pursuant to such o.rbii tration. However, in the event a final determination shall be 

made pursuant to such arbitration proce~~uJ'~s, failure by the 

!( 

Lessee to comply with such final determination shall constitute 

breach of this Ledsa. 

(1) In the event the Lessor shall claim that the Lessee 

ha$ violated this Agreement in any respect, ha shall give notice 

to thit Lai.sea in writing $tating in full det-ii.l all such claims 

ond the Less•• shall be P••rnittod thirty days following the 

receipt of such notice in which to cure such braach. 

(j) This agreement may be terminated by mut~al agree-

,, ment of both parties hereto, and shall not ba assigned, in whole 

\'1 or in part, without thoa prlor <igreement of the Norwood Airport I 

il 

'I 

li 

I 

[, 

I 

Commission in writing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, tht S<lid TOWN CF NOR'NQOD h,ls CoHJS&d 

its corporate sedl to be hereunto dffixed and these pxesents to 

be execiJted in ita. name and behJ.lf by '.Villiam c. Kendrick, Charles[ I L· Rich, Walter R. Ryan, Walter A. Blasenak, Harry B· Butters 1 i 

James J. Drummey, Joht'l. .'\. l\bddllah 1 Gedm~n C. oauksi& J,nd James J., 

H~wley, its Airport Commission, here~nto duly authoiized, and the 

-3-
.i 

5<J3TCN METR\lPDliT.AJ,J t\.IRPCRT, r~-e, ) 

sy : ~<· ,...~ 

-c::;:::~.l?l:"" .o,,. J:Hlnson 1 P:res:tdent: 

Jill· 1 A/y!/ • . +-- -fr:S~ i?'V, L~,__tj'--~ 

K~Zl~!ls w. Pl:t.mPt n~ Tr~Hsu-..cg; 
EXHIBIT 148 
r··· 

( 

AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING 

REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING 

April 9, 2014 

In Attendance: Commissioners Tom Wynne, Chairman, Martin Odstrchel, Mark Ryan, Kevin Shaughnessy. 

Airport Manager, Russ Maguire, Assistant Manager, Mark Raymond. 

Meeting Called to Order: 12:00PM 

APPOINTMENTS 

AlP Project Update; DuBois & King, Jeff Adler 

Closeout paperwork includes aerial photos, total payment $136,957.97 $89,766.98 payable to J. H. Lynch 

$47,190.99 to Dubois & King. The Norwood share was $3423.95. The overall project was delivered under 

budget by more than $10,000. 

On a motion by Mr. Ryan and seconded by Mr. Odstrchel the Commission voted 4/0 to approve final 

payment on Taxiway A. 

Second pay request is for pay request #2 for Taxiway A environmental assessment. Payment of $19,567.05 

to DuBois & King. Norwood Share $489.17 

On a motion by Mr. Ryan and seconded by Mr. Odstrchel the Commission voted 4/0 to approve payment. 

Regarding the Seeping meeting on environmental assessment Phase 2 for Taxiway A, and wildlife hazard 

assessment. Fee submitted, no IFE needed because under $100K. The deadline for submitting the grant 

application is May 1, 2014. 

On a motion by Mr. Ryan and seconded by Mr. Shaughnessy, the Commission voted 4/0 to approve 

permission for Chairman, Mr. Wynne sign the grant application. 

Mr. Adler will provide an update on the terminal building at the May meeting. 

Boston Executive Helicopters, Chris Donovan & Joshua Foxx (BEH counsel) 

The electrical on hanger is "roughed in" and inspected. Roof insulation is complete. Sprinkler system and 

HVAC is "roughed in", gas line installed and saw cut pavement outside installed 4.9.14. Water service & 

sprinkler in near future. Fuel system is scheduled to be installed the week of 4.14.14 and a generator is 

scheduled for installation. The building is expected to be weather tight by 4.25.14. 

Lease offer: BEH and Mr. Foxx do not think the square footage offered by NAC is adequate for fueling as an 

FBO. Presently, BEH would like to refuse the current offer of 83x83 square feet. 

Questions by NAC: What does BEH feel would be adequate space? lOOK square feet. 

Once again, the NAC is requesting a business plan from BEH and when that business plan has been 

submitted, the Commission will then relook at allocating more space on the airport. 

C. Donovan stated that NAC has never requested a business plan from BEH. 

NAC reiterates that business plan is necessary. 

BEH submitted their Financial plan to Mr. Maguire last night (AprilS, 2014). 

Mr. Donovan stated that he does approximately $700,000 in business and thousands of hours in Charter 

( Services with his helicopter operations. 

As a final comment, Mr. Donovan would like to state that he feels discussions with the NAC are always 

combative. 

For the record, Mr. Shaughnessy, as well as the other members of the NAC, support Mr. Maguire as a good 

and fair manager. 
( 

( 

MINUTES 

AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING 

REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING 

April 9, 2014 

-2-

* March 12, 2014 regular business meeting 

Mr. Ryan requests an edit of the New Business section, regarding area around the west ramp to clarify that J. Foxx, 

representing BEH, requested all or part of the west apron area of the airport. 

No vote will be taken at this time until the March minutes are updated to reflect this change. 

* March 12, 2014 executive session 

On a motion by Mr. Odstrchel, and seconded by Mr. Shaughnessy, the Commission voted 4/0 to accept the minutes 

of the Executive Session. 

AIRPORT MANAGER'S REPORT (March 1- March 31, 2014} 

Scoping Meeting, Environmental Assessment: 

On 3/13, airport management met with FAA and MassDOT officials, along with our engineer {DuBois & King) and 

environmental team (Epsilon Associates) for a scoping meeting on the environmental assessment allied to taxiway 

A's planned re-location. 

Spill Response: 

At about 3:35 p.m. on 3/18, airport management was notified that an aircraft parked on Flight level's lot 6 was 

leaking aviation gas on to the parking apron. Norwood Fire was immediately called and responded. Flight level line 

.personnel responded by capping the storm drain adjacent to the parked aircraft and capturing the flowage offuel. 

With Speedi-Dri, the environmental effect was localized with no run-off into the wetlands. Airport management and 

Flight level followed procedures outlined in the airport's Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan. 

- Informational UpdatesHollywood Movie 

On 3/11, airport management met with representatives from a Hollywood movie production company interested in 

using the Norwood Airport for a location shoot. 

Comprehensive Pavement Project 

Airport management has begun to coordinate preparations for the MassDOT project to crack-seal and repair 

pavement on the Norwood Airport's runways and taxiways. 

Air Traffic Control Tower Program 

Air Traffic Control Tower Program 

letter received from United States Senators to the Committee on Appropriations requesting language ensuring full 

and dedicated funding for the Contract Tower Program as part of the FY2015 FAA budget. 

March 2014 Air Traffic report: 3,964 Total Airport Operations 

On a motion by Mr. Shaughnessy and seconded by Mr. Odstrchel, the Commission voted 4/0 to accept the Airport 

Manager's Report. 

NEW BUSINESS 

• CY 2014 aircraft tie-down leases 

On a recommendation by Mr. Maguire and a motion by Mr. Ryan, seconded by Mr. Shaughnessy, the Commission 

voted 4/0 to award 2014 tie-down lease to Ray Fallon. 
( 

( 

CORRESPONDENCE 

AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING 

REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING 

April9, 2014 

-3-

* 3/12/14: An e-mail from C. Donovan, ofBEH, to Airport Manager regarding negotiations for the lease of 

LotsA,B,C 

* 3/17/14: A letter from Airport Manager to C. Donovan, ofBEH, regarding west apron lease offer of6,889 

square feet on the northeast corner of Norwood Airport's west apron. 

Mr. Ryan asked Mr. Maguire if he sent a letter to BEH regarding the illegal :flight operations. Mr. Maguire 

responded that the letter had been sent by email as well as hand delivered and there has been no response yet. 

MEETING ADJOURNED: 1:07PM 

On a motion by Mr. Shaughnessy and seconded by Mr. Odstrchel, the Commission voted 4/0 to adjourn to 

Executive Session. 
( 

( 

AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING 

EXECUTIVE SESSION 

April9, 2014 

Executive Session called to order: 1:15 

Lot 5 CAP ramp is on the 1,100-foot strip and on the master lease and needs to go for a review. 

Forward to Flight Level the extension of the lease 2047, if they will explain the investment. The lease 

extension will then have to go thru MassDOT for review. 

Lots 6 & 7: Capital project: 

On a motion by Mr. Shaughnessy and seconded by Mr. Ryan, the Commission voted 4/0 

to extend the lease to 2050 on the section outside of the 1,100 foot strip contingent on construction 

commencing no later than December 31, 2017. 

On a motion by Mr. Odstrchel and seconded by Mr. Ryan the Commission voted 4/0 to end Executive 

Session and return to regular session for the purposes of adjournment. 

Meeting adjourned: 1:24PM 
EXHIBIT 149 
NORWOOD AIRPORT COMMISSION 

Thomas J. \Vynne, Chairman 

Mark P. Ryan, Vice Chairman 

Kevin J. Shaughnessy, Clerk 

Leslie W. LeBlanc 

Martin E. Odstrchel 

NORWOODAIRPORTCOMMmSION 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC MEETING OF THE NORWOOD 

AIRPORT COMMISSION WILL BE HELD: 

DATE: 

TIME: 

PLACE: 

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 

12 p.m. 

Norwood Airport Commission Meeting Room 

.125 Access Road 

Norwood, MA 02062 

TENTATIVE AGENDA ITEM: 

• AI P projects 

• Boston Executive Helicopters' construction update 

• Review of prior meeting minutes 

• Airport Manager's report 

• Executive Session 

125 Access Road, Norwood, MA 02062 

PH:(781)255-5616 FAX:(781)255-5617 
EXHIBIT 150 
In Attendance: 

AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING 

REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING 

October 19, 2016 

APPROVED 

.JJ.}J.!d. I fa 

Commissioners: Mark Ryan, Chairman; Kevin Shaughnessy, Martin Odstrchel, Michael Sheehan, 

Leslie LeBlanc, Airport Manager, Russ Maguire. 

Meeting Called to Order: 3:02 PM 

PROJECTS 

• AlP project update: Taxiway A relocation, environmental assessment, Jeff Adler, DuBois & King 

Update by Jeff Adler. Final EIR has been submitted. Final certification should be issued 

December s'h. Phase 1 is completed, and now moving into Phase 2, permitting of the project. 

Permitting takes about a year. Construction should be in the summer of 2018. 

• Flight Level CAP project update, Peter Eichleay 

Summary by Peter Eichleay. Erection crew is on site. Building should be complete in 6-8 weeks. 

MINUTES 

• September 14, 2016 regular business meeting 

Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Odstrchel abstain from voting. On a motion by Mr. LeBlanc and seconded 

by Mr. Shaughnessy, the Commission voted 3/0 accept the Minutes with the changes outlined 

by Mr. Maguire. 

• September 14, 2016 executive session meeting 

Mr. Sheehan and Mr. Odstrchel abstain from voting. On a motion by Mr. Shaughnessy and 

seconded by Mr. leBlanc, the Commission voted 3/0 accept the Minutes. 

• July 13, 2016 regular business meeting 

Mr. leBlanc abstains from voting. On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. Odstrchel, 

the Commission voted 4/0 accept the Minutes as corrected changing the June 15th minutes 

changing the date on page three from 2014 to 2017. 

• July 13, 2016 Executive Session 

Mr. leBlanc abstains from voting. On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. 

Shaughnessy, the Commission voted 4/0 to accept the Minutes. 

o June 15, 2016 executive session meeting 

Mr. leBlanc abstains from voting. On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. 

Shaughnessy, the Commission voted 4/0 accept the table the acceptance of the minutes until 

after Executive Session. 
AIRPORT MANAGER'S REPORT 

• Mr. Maguire discussed the Airport Manager's Report including seal coating, striping project and 

selling of old Army trucks. 

On a motion by Mr. leBlanc and seconded by Mr. Shaughnessy, the Commission voted 5/0 to 

approve the Airport Manager's report. 

OLD BUSINESS 

• FAA Memorandum of Agreement 

Mr. Maguire updated the Commission on the combined memorandum of agreement from the 

FAA. 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. LeBlanc, the Commission voted 5/0 to accept the Air 

Traffic Control Tower Land Site Memorandum of Agreement between the FAA and Town of Norwood. 

NEW BUSINESS 

• Flight Level Leases: Lots 5, 6 and 7 

Flight Level is looking for lease extensions on lot 6 which goes to 2026 and lot 7 which goes to 

2026. CAP is under the Boston Metropolitan lease area, lot 5. That lease goes to 2047. At 

that time the Town of Norwood will assume control of that lease. Peter Eichleay gave a 

presentation and is requesting a lease extension on lots 6 and 7, as well as Lot 5 when the 

Boston Metropolitan lease is up. 

On a motion by Mr. Shaughnessy and seconded by Mr. leBlanc, the Commission voted 5/0 to 

acknowledge receipt of Flight Level's notification in a letter dated October 13, 2016 from Boston 

Metropolitan Airport to extend the lease dated December 13, 1967 from December 13, 2027 through 

December 12, 2047, Parcel2. 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and Seconded by Mr. leBlanc, the Commission voted 5/0 to approve 

Flight Level's lease extension for lot 5 from 2047-2050 with the following conditions: Flight Level 

provides a personal guarantee or letter of credit, provide adequate spill insurance and provide a site 

plan which will include a fuel site plan stamped and licensed by an engineer or surveyor. 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and Seconded by Mr. Shaughnessy, the Commission voted 5/0 to approve 

Flight Level's lease extension of Lots 6 and 7 from 2026 to 2050 with the following conditions: Flight 

Level provides a personal guarantee or letter of credit, provide adequate spill insurance and provide a 

site plan which will include a fuel site plan stamped by a licensed engineer or surveyor. 

• Norwood Record, Article 

Mr. Ryan discussed the newspaper article in the Norwood Record which addressed the issue of 

insurance coverage. The Town has multiple insurance carriers working on the lawsuit between 

BEH and Norwood Airport. The Town is not left hanging. The newspaper made it seem like a 

bigger issue than it in fact is. Many incorrect assumptions were made. 
• letter from Henshaw July 8, 2016 to John Davis 

Discussion surrounding the letter from Henshaw dated July 8, 2016. There are two FBO's 

licensed. One has agreed to provide information requested by the NAC, and another has 

decided they don't want to provide the information. The letter is disingenuous. Mr. 

Shaughnessy would like check the town insurance requirements for Flight Level and BEH. 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. Odstrchel, the Commission voted 5/0 to file the 

letter dated July 8, 2016. 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. Shaughnessy, the Commission voted 5/0 to amend a 

Motion dated June 15'h to provide a cutoff date of December 30, 2016, and to strike out "resolution of 

a Illegal matters." 

• Letter dated 10/11/16 from J. Nolan to NACre: Request to Hunt 

Discussion regarding hunting on the Airport property. Need to be careful about permits from 

the State and Federal Government. Need to make sure hunters are not trespassing and are not 

hunting wildlife out of season. 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. LeBlanc, the Commission voted 5/0 to approve Mr. 

Nolan's permit to hunt outside the fence during the season with the condition he supplies a means of 

lawful entry onto the airport property and whatever is requirement from the police chief. 

CORRESPONDENCE 

• 7/8/16 letter from E. Loeffler of Hinshaw & Culbertson, llP to J. Davis of Pierce, Davis & 

Perritano, LLP, re: Boston Executive Helicopters {BEH) 

• 9/23/16 Notice of extension oftime re: BEH v. Town of Norwood, Norwood Airport 

Commission 

• 10/5/16 letter from R. Maguire toM. Cofsl<y re: request to hunt 

• 10/11/16 letter from R. Maguire to A. Bishop, of Boston Air Charter, re: FY 17 commercial 

permit 

• 10/11/16 letter from J. Nolan to NC re: Hunting request 

• FAA Memorandum of Agreement 

• 10/13/16 letter from M. Pendergast, of BMA, Inc. toM. Ryan, of NAC, re: notice of option to 

renew 

o 10/16/16 MassDOT grant application, SRE equipment 
• 10/16/16 MassDOT grant application, obstruction analysis, AGIS survey technical MPU 

• 10/16/lfilease extension request Flight Level Norwood, LLC 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. Ostrchel, the Commission voted by roll call to 

adjourn for the purpose of Executive Session to discuss the continuing legal issues between NAC and 

'BEH . Discussion of those issues in open session would be detrimental to the NAC's litigation position. 

Mr. Ryan: Yes 

Mr. Sheehan: Yes 

Mr. LeBlanc: Yes 

Mr. Shaughnessy: Yes 

Mr. Odstrchel: Yes 

Adjourned for the purposes of Executive Session at 4:12 p.m. 

The Commission returned to Open Session at 4:28 p.m. 

On a motion by Mr. Shaughnessy and seconded by Mr. Odstrchel, the Commission voted 5/0 to 

adjourn the October 19, 2016 meeting. 

The minutes of the NAC will be published on the Town Website. 

MEETING ADJOURNED: 4:28PM 
EXHIBIT 151 
Flightlevel Norwood, LLC 

Lease Extension Request 

October 2016 

Prepared by: 

Prepared for: 

VJf\TiCN 

Norwood Airport 

Commission 

(NAC) 
on serves to provide the NAC with an 

ghtLevel's (FL) recent, on-going and future 

ements which justify the lease extensions FL 

Lease Lot 6/7 and Lease Lot 5. 

ckground 

ase Lot 5, 6/7 improvements 

CAP Hangar 

Terminal Building 

Hangars 2, 3, 4, 5 

anned Future Projects 

nclusion I Contact 

Confidential 

2 

3 

7 

9 

~ F LIGH.TlEVEL 

..,, '· ' ' " l ' ,, 1 
rior to commencing preliminary site work on its 

angar complex, FL requested that the two leases 

roject (the Lot 5 BMA sublease, and the Lot 6/7 

h the NAC), be extended out to 2050 to provide 

hts of access via Lot 7 to the future facility on 5 

icient term to amortize the investment. 

15, 2014, the NAC established the following conditions: 

blease could be extended upon satisfactory review by the FAA and Massachusetts 

nsportation (Aeronautics Division), per conditions set forth in the prime lease between 

ood and BMA, Inc. 

could be extended provided Flightlevel commence construction of the CAP hangar 

han December 31, 2017. 

NS HAVE BEEN MET: 

blease extension has been presented to and reviewed by the FAA and Massachusetts 

nsportation (Aeronautics Division), and neither regulatory agency has elected to 

ction. 

d the NAC with its election to extend its prime lease out to 2047, and has negotiated an 

ot 5 Sublease that has been reviewed and approved by NAC counsel. 

sel have settled on language that will add lot 5 to the lot 6/7 lease for the final three 

 reversion to the Town in 2047. 

e lot 6/7 lease, Fl commenced construction of the CAP hangar complex well in advance 

1, 2017 deadline, and anticipates that with the extension of the lot 5 and lot 6/7 

 secure funding to complete the project by December 31, 2016. 

Maguire to FL Leffer re: Letter of Intent: Lots a, b, c; Lot 5; Lots 6,7 

Confidential 

FLIGHT LEVEL 

I 2 
$1.2 million of FlightLevel's $2.5 million CAP Hangar 

 within the Lot 6/7 lease premises (the remainder is 

ot 6/7 lease currently goes through 2026. 

AP Hangar Project 

\ -~~-·~R~i=\-- - ~-------- ,~···--·· ---~---- ~-- -- --- ----- J - --'·-..., - \' -- - -- """"--"""" ----"f'----~~ - J n; ' '• 

-

,cHM~HK 

'""C' ----- ,,l, I, '\ 

,, 1 

1

'1', 

' ' ,, ,,,,, '\1. SMH HIM \ . \ Cl -- ~ ''59 1 ', 1 I' -~, 

5 

I 

_j 

~~~:§:i~]~EE~~~~~~ 

~~;;;;'~'-----------

12, 

-1 ~~- ;;~ R~ldQVW ------ ', ,- ·-

Ji 

P')il 

,, 

----

>o 

·· ,j ' ~ -'l' <;iOl WIDE i c,o~;~n 

• • "' 

 

 

,- · -

_ 

'"0'0"" 

;o eo 

""~~~"1"'"-1r 

'~"""·"'" ,

1 

' ' '"'""'' 

 

I ~,,~_,cou". .. . ,, j - - --- -

' I 

Y, 

; j 

! 

' 

I 

$:.;/ RtOTAINI'IG 

cur OJWN ~ TO" DF W.'ILL fl EL 4fd 1'' ~--A'' 

' ' '*' ·- n , .. \- ~ i a-t=\~{~~ · TYP~ K 

C041'~~ 

W( WATER SEI VICJ::, I CURB ,r .. TO (Typ) \~ TOP Oc' WAH j fL -1d_7 

FI~L_____ i -f. 

ws 

/ZA1 J I 

HMJGAR X 6~ "1.·o·····lf'/ / ~~~.···Ji;·.·C:A 

·L-~_ t"'~ .. S 

-?{ f I ·II j • 

'; 

li, ll i'-- n 

:!!!I; 

5,1 !'! t, I .... 

11

-

l" rll 

i ! :~I i I ; I i' 1 li 

5 

-r--

HANGER 

SLAB EL. 48.8± 

I. 

.... /-,.--Q-()ORWAY 

/-- El 48.8± 

5 

LEASE 

(21'0,180 ~---- •• •--< o•- --- • SMH @ LOT', 6 SQ. ~IJ 

LEGEI~D 

i:DGE m= P~ l.El\SE LINE 

P.-\INTED Lli'i 

BOLL.ARDS 

DRAINAGfMfl 

CI\.TCH B.A,C 

GAS GATf 

GAS L'NE 

SEWER 

SEWER 1.•1A.N 

WATER UNE 

VvATER GATI 

UTIUTY POL 

BUILDINGS 

FENC ~ PROPERH l 

WETLANDS l 

WETLA~!OS 1 

TOP OF BA 

FEMA FLOO[ 

DRl,JN.~.GE r::: 

CONCBEH 

1' cmrrouR 

10 CONTOU 

SPOT GRAD! 

E:ROSIION 0 

LIMIT Of E:<: 

ectetube FLIGHT LEVEL 

Confidential 

-" \f 3 
oject's largest hangar bay and cost driver due 

ght/width, beam spans and customized 

bathroom, LED lighting, additional storage 

Confidential 

Unit 6: 

Approx 7,000 Sqft 

20 ft Door Height 

fLiGHTLEVEL 

I 4 

,, ',) \'i 
;:-- "'n 

" r-

"' 

J: 

~ 

r 

m 

< 

m 

r 

"' 

I 

-!'-

~~~~ 

g a i ~ 

i' l!li ' '' !, !~t ~ 

~~--llfll 

a" \lB, .1.' rim ~ \[]'H. I /'-- < 

i" r<~ji ~~a ~~ ~ '" I ~~ • 

~ i I '"I .. < 1~--l jill! r 

:1 . 

IT~~r~ ;:bf:;~l !U•i 

1!i(f~i~ r~" ~ 1 

. , II ,~ .,. . ~- :~ ' Fi' '" j, ctJI 'l'jl llj~~ 

r-·-

! 

i ' 

;;~-· 

e 

i' ' ~ 

.. l' EJ .. . I 

" 9 

-·--0 

---------{~! 

l 

8 

., 

~~ :il ,. • • r,"\ 

' "' ,. 

i ! 

! -:-~, 

I 

~ 

~ 

:§l 

@ 

:3 

! ,, " ;, c~~ 

~ .. i 

,, ;i! 

~ !~ ·, I 

I il 

' 

(~I 

~~~ 

I .~ 

= 

' ' 
million dollar investment requires an extension 

order to amortize the value of the investment. 

$2,300,000.00 Number of Payments: 

4.2500% Periodic Payment: 

09/01/2015 1st Payment Due: 

Quarterly Last Payment Due: 

$1,692,380.04 Total All Payments: 

Date Payment Interest Principal 

09/01/2016 0.00 0.00 0.00 

09/01/2015 33,645.67 0.00 33,645.67 

12/01/2016 33,645.67 24,080.01 9,565.66 

2016 Totals: 67,291.34 24,080.01 43,211.33 Running Totals: 67,291.34 24,080.01 43,211.33 

03/01/2017 33,645.67 23,978.38 9,667.29 

06/01/2017 33,645.67 23,875.66 9,770.01 

09{01/2017 33,645.67 23,771.86 9,873.81 

12/01/2017 33,645.67 23,666.95 9,978.72 

2017 Totals: 134,582.68 95,292.85 39,289.83 Running Totals: 201,874.02 119,37286 82,501.16 

Confidential 

136 

$33,645.57 

09/01/2016 

06/01/2050 

$3,992,380.04 

Balance 

2,300,000.00 

2,266,354.33 

2,256.788.67 

2,247,121.38 

2,237,351.37 

2,227,477.56 

2,217,498.84 

FL!GHTLEVEL 

!\ \ 

I 6 
 plans to invest in a new Hangar near the 

gar-bays with successful tenant subscription. 

Confidential 

• 

'-

"" 

-

-

I 7 
Previous Slide. 

nt Project Matrix: 

Approximate Date Span 

2014-2016 

2014-2015 

2019-2022 

Approximate Investment 

$Amount 

$650,000 

$2,500,000 

Estimated $2,850,000 (TBD) 

$6,000,000 

Confidential 

Location 

Lot 6/7 

Lot 5, 6/7 

Lot 6/7 

Status 

Complete 

Near Completion: Conditional Financing 

Approved (Pending Sufficient Leasehold 

Amortization Term), Hangar Tenants 

Conditionally Subscribed 

Planned 

._ F LIGHTL EVEL "\i,, ' ,, ' '' ' ' ' 8 
 have been negotiated and the vast majority of the 

pleted. FL is respectfully requesting that the NAC 

tion of the extension documents at this time so that 

equired for the completion of the CAP Hangar 

 released and serious planning for future projects 

It's about quality service. 

Every time you land. Every time you take off. 

And every moment in between. 

CONTACT: 

Peter Eichleay 

President - FlightLeve/ Aviation 

125 Access Rd. 

Terminal Building 2nd Floor 

Norwood, MA 02062 

Work: 781.769.8680 ext 128 

Fax: 781.370.8680 

Cell: 703.282.7853 

Confidential 

~FLIGHTLEVEL I 

..,, " •i ,. I ' ' 9 
EXHIBIT 152 
Brandon H. Moss 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Brandon: 

eloeffler@hinshawlaw.com 

Monday, August 24, 2015 5:40 PM 

Brandon H. Moss 

TMcCulloch@hinshawlaw.com 

Boston Executive Helicopters, LLC - Proposed Lease Agreement 

Security- LOC Provision.DOCX 

In lieu of a guarantor for the proposed West Apron, Parcel A lease, BEH proposes to provide an irrevocable standby letter 

of credit as security for the lease. The letter of credit would be issued by Bank of America in the name and for the benefit 

of the Lessor (i.e. the Norwood Airport Commission ("NAG")), have a term of not less than one (1) year (but be deemed to 

be automatically renewed, without amendment, for consecutive periods of one year each through the duration of the five 

(5) year lease), and be in the amount of $28,851.20, reduced each year to the amount remaining on the proposed five (5) 

year lease. The proposed amount of the letter of credit was calculated by adding the total rent payments for each year of 

the lease, taking into account a yearly rent increase of two percent (2%) from the preceding year (for years two through 

five), as set forth in Article Ill of the proposed lease agreement. A proposed draft "Security- Letter of Credit" clause for 

the proposed Lease Agreement is enclosed herewith for your review and consideration. Although I understand that the 

proposed clause and terms thereof may be subject to further discussion and negotiation, I would ask that you let me know 

at your earliest convenience whether the concept of a letter of credit in lieu of a guarantor is something the NAG is willing 

to accept. 

Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you. 

Regards, 

Eric 

Eric H. Loeffler 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 

28 State Street 24th Floor Boston, MA 02109-5709 

Tel: 617-213-7010 1 Fax: 617-213-7001 

E-mail: eloeff!er@hinshawiaw_com 

\NWW.Iinkedin.com/in/!oeffiereric 

HINSHAW 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is an Illinois registered limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed 

by the Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997). 

The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) named in this 

message. This communication is intended to be and to remain confidential and may be subject to applicable 

attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this 

message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete 

this message and its attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments and if 

you are not the intended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the 

information contained in this communication or any attachments. 
SECURITY- LETTER OF CREDIT: 

Together with Lessee's execution of this lease, Lessee shall deliver to Lessor a clean, irrevocable 

standby letter of credit ("Letter of Credit") issued by Bank of America, in Boston, Massachusetts 

(the "Issuing Bank"), which Letter of Credit shall (i) name Lessor as beneficiary thereof, (ii) 

have a term of not less than one(!) year, (iii) be in the amount of Twenty Eight Thousand Eight 

Hundred Fifty One Dollars and Twenty Cents ($28,851.20), and (iv) otherwise be in form and 

content satisfactory to Lessor in its reasonable discretion. The Letter of Credit shall provide that: 

(a) Lessor may draw (on one or more occasions) an amount up to the face amount of the Letter 

of Credit upon presentation of only a demand for payment in the amount to be drawn, together 

with a certification executed by a duly authorized representative of the Lessor stating that it is 

entitled to draw on the Letter of Credit pursuant to the provisions of this Lease; (b) the Letter of 

Credit shall be deemed to be automatically renewed, without amendment, for consecutive 

periods of one year each, and shall have a final expiration date of not earlier than thirty (30) days 

after the expiration date of this Lease, unless the Issuing Bank sends written notice (hereinafter 

called the "Non-Renewal Notice") to Lessor, by certified or registered mail, return receipt 

requested, not less than thirty (30) days next preceding the then expiration date of the Letter of 

Credit, that it elects not to have such Letter of Credit renewed; and (c) Lessor, after receipt of the 

Non-Renewal Notice, within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date of any Letter of Credit 

then held by Lessor, unless Lessee replaces the Letter of Credit with a replacement letter of 

credit within thirty (30) days of Lessor's receipt of the Non-Renewal Notice, shall have the right, 

exercisable by a demand for payment draft only, to draw upon the Letter of Credit and receive 

the proceeds thereof. 

Lessor shall be entitled to draw upon the Letter of Credit in the event Lessee defaults in the 

performance of any of the terms of this Lease beyond the expiration of any applicable notice (the 

delivery of which shall not be required for purposes of this Article if Lessor is prohibited from 

delivering the same under applicable law, including, without limitation, all applicable bankruptcy 

or insolvency laws), grace or cure periods, or Lessee files a voluntary petition under any Federal 

or state bankruptcy or insolvency code, law or proceeding, or any obligations of Lessee remain 

unperformed or unsatisfied as of the expiration or earlier termination of this lease, including, 

without limitation, the payment of any rent, Lessor may draw upon, use, apply or retain the 

whole or any part of the Letter of Credit to the extent required for the payment of any rent or for 

any sum which Lessor may expend or may be required to expend by reason of the foregoing, 

including, without limitation, any damages or deficiency in the re-letting of the Leased Premises, 

whether accruing before or after summary proceedings or other re-entry by Lessor. The 

application of the Letter of Credit hereunder shall not be deemed a limitation on Lessor's 

damages or a payment of liquidated damages or a payment of the monthly rent due for the last 

month of the term of this Lease. 

Provided that this Lease shall be in full force and effect and Lessee shall not be in default 

hereunder beyond applicable notice and cure periods, the Letter of Credit shall be reduced to the 

following amounts as of the following dates: (a) Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred Seven 

Dollars and Twenty Cents ($23,307.20) on the first (1st) day of the second (2nd) Lease Year, (b) 

Seventeen Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Two Dollars and Thirty Two Cents ($17,652.32) on the 

first (1st) day of the third (3rd) Lease Year, (c) Eleven Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Four 

Dollars and Thirty Four Cents ($11 ,884.34) on the first (1st) day of the fourth (4th) Lease Year, 

34543613vl 0964237 
and (d) Six Thousand One Dollar and No Cents ($6,001.00) on the first (1st) day of the fifth 

(5th) Lease Year. Lessor shall consent to a modification of the Letter of Credit to reduce the 

amount thereof to the applicable reduced amount (the form and substance of such modification to 

be satisfactory to Lessor in its reasonable discretion) or shall accept a replacement letter of credit 

in the applicable amount which in form and substance is reasonably satisfactory to the Lessor 

and which otherwise satisfies the requirements hereof and shall thereupon return to the Lessee 

the original letter of credit then being held by the Lessor. 

Lessee covenants that it will not assign or encumber, or attempt to assign or encumber, the Letter 

of Credit or any proceeds thereof, and that neither Lessor nor its successors or assigns shall be 

bound by any such assignment, encumbrance, attempted assignment or attempted encumbrance. 

If the Lessor determines, in its sole discretion, that the financial condition of the Issuing Bank 

has so declined as to cause concern that the Issuing Bank may not honor a draw on its Letter of 

Credit, Lessee shall promptly, and in any event, within ten (10) business days of Lessor's written 

demand therefor, obtain a replacement Letter of Credit complying with the terms hereof from 

another commercial bank acceptable to Lessor with offices for banking purposes in Boston, 

Massachusetts. 

2 

34543613vl 0964237 
EXHIBIT 153 
. ~, 

In Attendance: 

AIRPORT COMMISSION MEETING 

REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING 

November 16, 2016 

Commissioners: Mark Ryan, Chairman; Michael Sheehan, leslie leBlanc, Airport Manager, 

Russ Maguire. 

Meeting Called to Order: 3:01 PM 

PROJECTS 

• AlP project update: Taxiway A relocation, environmental assessment, Jeff Adler, DuBois & King 

Update by Jeff Adler. Final EIR has been submitted. Comment period ending first week in 

December. Permitting will begin. Construction should be in the summer of 2018. 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. leBlanc, the Commission voted 3/0 to pay final 

Invoice for Environmental Assessment for Taxiway A Relocation in the amount of $29,796.98. 

Norwood's share is $744.93. 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. leBlanc, the Commission voted 3/0 to pay final 

invoice for Wildlife Hazard Assessment in the amount of $9,948.00. Norwood's share is $497.40. 

• Flight level CAP project update, Peter Eichleay 

Summary by Peter Eichleay. The structure has been erected. The doors will be hung shortly 

after Thanksgiving. Siding and roofing will begin in early December. Final asphalt layer should 

be done in early December if weather holds out. Following that will be electric, gas, plumbing 

and fire protection. That should be complete by the end of the year. Looking at January for the 

building to be complete. 

MINUTES 

• October 19, 2016 regular business meeting 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. leBlanc, the Commission voted 3/0 accept 

the Minutes. 

• October 19, 2016 executive session meeting 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. leBlanc, the Commission voted 3/0 accept 

the Minutes. 

• June 15, 2016 executive session meeting 

The acceptance of the minutes will move to 'the next meeting of the Commission. 
AIRPORT MANAGER'S REPORT 

• Mr. Maguire discussed the Airport Manager's Report including asphalt inspection, finalize 

airport maintenance, grass and brush control, wildlife control. 

On a motion by Mr. LeBlanc and seconded by Mr. Sheehan, the Commission voted 3/0 to approve the 

Airport Manager's report. 

NEW BUSINESS 

• 2016-2017 Snow Removal Agreement, P.J. Hayes, Inc. 

This is the same contract that has been used for years, and updated every year. The rates are 

the same as a year ago. P.J. Hayes has been plowing on the Airport since 1998-1999. They are 

a very responsive company. Mr. Sheehan has requested that the contract be amended to add 

the Airport Commission to the liability insurance. Mr. Sheehan would like it to read the Airport 

Manager, the Assistant Manager and the Airport Commission and the Town of Norwood. 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. LeBlanc, the Commission voted 3/0 to accept the 

contract as amended. 

CORRESPONDENCE 

• 2016-2017 snow removal agreement: Norwood Airport Commission/P.J. Hayes 

• FAA sponsor project readiness form: obstruction analysis/AGIS survey/technical MPU 

• 11/10/16 letter from Town Counsel to FAA Office of Chief Counsel re: Part 16 complaint: 

Boston Executive Helicopters v. Town of Norwood and Norwood Airport Commission; 

respondent's motion for leave to file a fourth submittal rebuttal 

On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. LeBlanc, the Commission voted by rol.l call to 

adjourn for the purpose of Executive Session to discuss the continuing legal issues between NAC and 

BEH. Discussion of those issues in open session would be detrimental to the NAC's litigation position. 

The Commission will leave Executive Session for the purposes of adjournment only. 

Mr. Ryan: Yes 

Mr.Sheehan: Yes 

Mr. LeBlanc: Yes 

Adjourned for the purposes of Executive Session at 3:16p.m. 

The Commission returned to Open Session at 3:38 p.m . 

. On a motion by Mr. Sheehan and seconded by Mr. LeBlanc, the Commission voted 3/0 to adjourn the 

November 16, 2016 meeting. 

The minutes of the NAC will be published on the Town Website. 

MEETING ADJOURNED: 3:38PM